Telangana High Court
Raavi Satish Kumar vs State Of Telangana on 7 August, 2025
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION No.20880 OF 2025
ORDER:
Heard Mr. Kishore Baldwa, learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home and also learned
Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.
2. This writ petition is filed questioning the proceedings
No.C/8059/2024, dated 24.10.2024 issued by respondent No.2.
3. The petitioner herein is claiming that he is the absolute
owner of house bearing No.4-92, situated opposite LIC Office,
Janmabhumi Nagar, Mancherial, hereinafter referred to as ‘subject
house’. It was let out to one Mr. Ramoju Karunakar, by way of
executing a lease deed dated 01.06.2024 for the purpose of running a
lodge and guest house. The lease is for a period of two (02) years. In
the said lease deed, there is a specific mention that Lessee cannot use
the subject house for unlawful activity.
4. It is further contended that a case in Crime No.538 of 2024
was registered against the said lessee and other accused by Mancherial
Town Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections – 143
2
KL, J
WP No.20880 of 2025
(1) (d) and 143 (1) (f) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short
‘BNS’) and Sections – 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention)
Act, 1956 (for short ‘ITP Act‘). Lessee is arraigned as accused No.8.
The allegation levelled against them in the said complaint dated
21.08.2024 of Mancherial Town Police Station is that the accused are
using the subject house as a brothel house.
5. On completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer
laid charge sheet against the accused therein and the same was taken
on file as C.C. No.496 of 2024 against the lessee of the subject house
and others for the aforesaid offences.
6. While the matter stood thus, respondent No.2 has issued a
show-cause notice dated 10.10.2024 directing the petitioner herein to
submit explanation. He has submitted explanation dated 15.10.2024
by duly enclosing a copy of the said lease deed informing respondent
No.2 that he has let out the subject house to accused No.8 and there is
a specific clause in the said lease deed that lessee cannot use the
subject house for any unlawful activity. It is further stated that on
coming to know about the said illegal activities, the petitioner has
already terminated the said lease in terms of the said lease deed.
3
KL, J
WP No.20880 of 2025
Without considering the said aspects, vide impugned proceedings
dated 24.10.2024, respondent No.2 seized the subject house in terms
of Section – 18 (1) (a) of ITP Act. Challenging the said order, the
petitioner filed the present writ petition contending that respondent
No.2 has no power to seize the subject house in terms of Section – 18
(1) (a) of ITP Act and he has not assigned any reasons in the
impugned order while seizing the subject house.
7. Whereas, learned Assistant Government Pleaders for
Revenue and Home, on instructions, would submit that the accused in
the said crime used the subject house as brothel house, which is in
violation of the ITP Act. Therefore, the subject house was seized by
respondent No.2 by following the procedure laid down under Section –
18 (1) (a) of the ITP Act. There is no irregularity in it.
8. In the light of the aforesaid submissions, it is relevant to note
that Section – 18 of the ITP Act deals with ‘closure of brothel and
eviction of offenders from the premises’ and the same is extracted as
under:
“18. Closure of brothel and eviction of offenders
from the premises.–(1) A magistrate may, on
4
KL, J
WP No.20880 of 2025receipt of information from the police or otherwise,
that any house, room, place or any portion thereof
within a distance of two hundred metres of any public
place referred to in sub-section (1) of section 7, is
being run or used as a brothel by any person or is
being used by prostitutes for carrying on their trade,
issue notice on the owner, lessor or landlord of such
house, room, place or portion or the agent of the
owner, lessor or landlord or on the tenant, lessee,
occupier of, or any other person incharge of such
house, room, place, or portion, to show cause within
seven days of the receipt of the notice why the same
should not be attached for improper user thereof; and
if, after hearing the person concerned, the magistrate
is satisfied that the house, room, place or portion is
being used as a brothel or for carrying on prostitution,
then the magistrate may pass orders–
(a) directing eviction of the occupier within seven
days of the passing of the order from the
house, room, place or portion;
(b) directing that before letting it out during the
period of one year or in a case where a child or
minor has been found in such house, room,
place or portion during a search under section
15, during the period of three years,
immediately after the passing of the order, the
owner, lessor or landlord or the agent of the
5
KL, J
WP No.20880 of 2025owner, lessor or landlord shall obtain the
previous approval of the magistrate:
Provided that, if the magistrate finds that the
owner, lessor or landlord as well as the agent of the
owner, lessor or landlord, was innocent of the
improper user of the house, room, place or portion, he
may cause the same to be restored to the owner,
lessor or landlord, or the agent of the owner, lessor or
landlord, with a direction that the house, room, place
or portion shall not be leased out, or otherwise given
possession of, to or for the benefit of the person who
was allowing the improper user therein.
(2) A court convicting a person of any offence
under section 3 or section 7 may pass order under
subsection (1) without further notice to such person
to show cause as required in that sub-section.
(3) Orders passed by the magistrate or court under
sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall not be subject
to appeal and shall not be stayed or set aside by the
order of any court, civil or criminal and the said
orders shall cease to have validity after the expiry of
one year or three years, as the case may be:
Provided that where a conviction under section 3
or section 7 is set aside on appeal on the ground that
such house, room, place or any portion thereof is not
being run or used as a brothel or is not being used by
prostitutes for carrying on their trade, any order
6
KL, J
WP No.20880 of 2025passed by the trial court under sub-section (1) shall
also be set aside.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any
other law for the time being in force, when a
magistrate passes an order under sub-section (1), or a
court passes an order under sub-section (2), any lease
or agreement under which the house, room, place or
portion is occupied at the time, shall become void and
inoperative.
(5) When an owner, lessor or landlord, or the agent
of such owner, lessor or landlord fails to comply with
a direction given under clause (b) of sub-section (1),
he shall be punishable with fine which may extend to
five hundred rupees or when he fails to comply with a
direction under the proviso to that subsection, he shall
be deemed to have committed an offence under
clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 3 or clause (c)
of sub-section (2) of section 7, as the case may be,
and punished accordingly.”
9. There is no dispute that a case in Crime No.538 of 2024 was
registered by Mancherial Town Police Station against the lessee of the
subject house on the complaint dated 21.08.2024 of the Sub-Inspector
of Police, Mancherial Town Police Station alleging that the accused
used the subject house for illegal activities. There is also no dispute
7
KL, J
WP No.20880 of 2025
that the Investigating Officer, on completion of investigation, laid
charge sheet against the accused therein including the lessee. The
same was taken on file vide C.C. No.496 of 2024 for the aforesaid
offences.
10. Respondent No.2 has issued show-cause notice dated
10.10.2024 show causing the petitioner herein as to why the subject
house shall not be attached for improper use of the same. Seven (07)
days time was granted to the petitioner. He has submitted explanation
dated 15.10.2024. Respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order
dated 24.10.2024 holding that Mr. Drakshapalli Venkata Narayana,
Power of Attorney Holder of the petitioner/Care Taker of the subject
house failed to stop the illegal activities which were done by the
accused in the subject house. Therefore, it shows the negligence of
the petitioner and his Power of Attorney Holder. The explanation
submitted by the petitioner is unsatisfactory. Therefore, invoking the
power under Section – 18 (1) (a) of the ITP Act, respondent No.2
seized the subject house. Vide impugned order dated 24.10.2024,
respondent No.2 directed respondent No.4 to seize the subject house.
In the impugned order, it is also stated by respondent No.2 that
8
KL, J
WP No.20880 of 2025
respondent No.4 has to seize the subject house within seven (07) days
from the date of receipt of copy of said order, otherwise show-cause
why the said order should not be made absolute in order to remove the
public nuisance in the interest of public and justice.
11. It is the specific contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner that respondent No.2 cannot seize the subject house in terms
of Section – 18 (1) (a) of the ITP Act, at the most, he can close the
property and evict the offenders from the subject house.
12. There is no definition of offenders in the ITP Act.
Admittedly, the offenders in the aforesaid crime are labourers of the
lessee and the lessee of the subject house. According to the petitioner,
he has already terminated the aforesaid lease and evicted the lessee.
There is no definition of ‘seizure’ in the ITP Act. Therefore, in terms
of Section – 18 (1) (a) of the ITP Act, respondent No.2, at the most,
can close the subject house and evict the offenders on the ground that
it was used for brothel house.
13. As per Section – 18 (1) (a) of the ITP Act, respondent No.2
has power to direct eviction of the occupier within seven (07) days of
9
KL, J
WP No.20880 of 2025
the passing of the order from the house, room, place or portion. He
has power to direct owner of the property before letting it out during
the period of one (01) year or in a case where a child or minor has
been found in such house, room, place or portion during a search
under Section – 15, during the period of three (03) years, immediately
after the passing of the order, the owner, lessor or landlord or the
agent of the owner, lessor or landlord shall obtain the previous
approval of the Magistrate.
14. Respondent No.2 has to satisfy himself with regard to using
of the subject house for brothel house. Thereafter, he can order for
eviction of the offenders. He has to assign specific reasons. In the
present case, respondent No.2 did not consider the said aspects more
particularly that he does not have power to seize the subject house and
also the explanation dated 15.10.2024 submitted by the petitioner
stating that he has already terminated the lease and evicted the
offenders. There is no consideration of the explanation submitted by
the petitioner that in the lease deed there is specific clause that lessee
shall not use the subject house for illegal activities.
10
KL, J
WP No.20880 of 2025
15. In Motumarri Ramakrishna v. Sub-Divisional
Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Vijayawada, Krishna
District1 relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, the
Magistrate attached the property directly without issuing notice to the
owner of the property. Therefore, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh
at Hyderabad held that the same is in violation of the procedure laid
down under Section – 18 (1) of the ITP Act. Whereas, in the present
case, respondent No.2 has issued notice, but he has not considered the
explanation dated 15.10.2024 submitted by the petitioner and the
contents therein. Respondent No.2 has no power to seize the property.
Thus, the said aspects were not considered by respondent No.2 in the
impugned order dated 24.10.2024. Therefore the same is liable to be
set aside on the said ground alone.
16. The impugned order dated 24.10.2024 of respondent No.2
in Proc.No.C/8059/2024 is accordingly set aside. However, the
petitioner shall not use the subject house for any illegal activities
including brothel house. If he wants to let out the subject house, he
has to take care of the same, see that it will not be used for any illegal
1
. 2014 (3) ALD 243
11
KL, J
WP No.20880 of 2025
activities. Mere mentioning of clause in the lease deed that lessee
shall not use the subject house for unlawful activities, is not sufficient.
The petitioner being owner of the subject house has to oversee that the
lessee is using the subject house for the purpose for which it was let
out. In the present case, the subject house was let out for the purpose
of running a lodge and guest house. Therefore, lessee has to conduct
only legal activities in the subject house, he cannot conduct illegal
activities. However, it is the duty of the petitioner, being owner of the
subject house, to see that lessee shall not conduct any illegal activities
in the subject house.
17. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ
petition is allowed. In the circumstances of the cases, there shall be
no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in
the writ petition shall stand closed.
_________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
7th August, 2025
Mgr